Allowed

Kamal Pathak & Ors. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2025W.P.(CRL)/2346/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife and husband's family settled matrimonial disputes before mediation; divorce obtained and settlement amount paid. Complainant and State raised no objection. Court quashed FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and Section 4 DV Act along with consequential proceedings, relying on Supreme Court precedent permitting quashing upon amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 248/2020 dated 21.10.2020, PS M.S. Park, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and Section 4 DV Act, and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Kamal Pathak & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~23

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Date of decision: 02.12.2025

¶4

W.P.(CRL) 2346/2025 KAMAL PATHAK & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Trilok Singh and Mr. Satyendra Kumar, Advs. with all petitioners in person

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel and Ms. Priyam Aggarwal, Mr. Abhinav Arya, Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. with IO/ASI Ganga Ram with SI Amit Baniwal. Mr. Prashant Singhal Mr. Aadish Jain, Adv for R-2. With R-2 in person.

¶7

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT(ORAL)

¶8

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶9

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 248/2020, dated 21.10.2020, registered at P.S M.S. Park, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and section 4 of DV Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶10

W.P.(CRL). 2346/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶11

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 3.12.2025 11:05:50

¶12

The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 19.11.2019 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock. However, on account of temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately.

¶13

As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by the petitioners. FIR No. 248/2020 was lodged at the instance of respondent no. 2 at PS M.S. Park under sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and section 4 of DV Act against the petitioners.

¶14

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes before the Delhi Mediation Centre Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi and the terms of settlement were written in the form of Settlement dated 23.02.2024. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 have obtained divorce on 22.03.2025 and the petitioner no. 1 has paid the entire settlement amount of Rs. 6,50,000/(Rupees Six Lacs Fifty Thousand only) to respondent no. 2 as per the schedule in the settlement. Copy of the settlement dated 23.02.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-2.

¶15

Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officers SI Amit Baniwal and ASI Ganga Ram, from PS M.S. Park.

¶16

W.P.(CRL). 2346/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 3.12.2025 11:05:50

¶18

Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she has received the entire settlement and has no objection if the FIR No. 248/2020 is quashed against the Petitioners.

¶19

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 248/2020 is quashed.

¶20

Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable settlement of disputes in Rangappa Javoor vs The State Of Karnataka And Another , Diary No. 33313/2019, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74, Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs Babita Raghuvanshi &Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58 & in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 .

¶21

Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC .

¶22

In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any

¶23

W.P.(CRL). 2346/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 3.12.2025 11:05:50

¶25

coercion. It would be in the interest of justice, to quash the above mentioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶26

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 248/2020, dated 21.10.2020, registered at P.S M.S. Park, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and section 4 of DV Act and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶27

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶29

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J DECEMBER 2, 2025 MA

¶30

W.P.(CRL). 2346/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 3.12.2025 11:05:50

Kamal Pathak & Ors. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Pathak & Ors. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Gupta Vs State NCT of Delhi

Kanhiya and Another Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another

Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

Jagmohan & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Hidayat Ullah & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Prashant@Prashant Gulla and Ors. Vs the State N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr.

Narendra Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohd Shuaib & Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bhim Sain & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Malkit Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi

Charandeep Singh Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ajay Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Augustus Teran Alias Augustus Taylor Teran Vs State Though SHO & Anr.